Mayflower District Court
#evolvedfactors-v-mayflower-national-guard
This is the start of #evolvedfactors-v-mayflower-national-guard channel.
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-14 01:34 p.m.
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2025-08-28 06:56 p.m.
Brenda Cornwallis 2025-06-14 01:34 p.m.@mike_bn
Brenda Cornwallis used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-14 01:34 p.m. @Brenda Cornwallis has added @mike_bn to the case channel.
Case Modified
Brenda Cornwallis used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-14 01:34 p.m. @Brenda Cornwallis has added @ian to the case channel.
Case Modified
ian 2025-06-14 01:34 p.m.
hii
ian 2025-06-14 01:35 p.m.
filed
ian
mike_bn 2025-06-14 02:13 p.m.
Accepted
mike_bn 2025-06-14 02:13 p.m.
Have them served
mike_bnAccepted
ian 2025-06-14 02:13 p.m.
thank you your honor
ian 2025-06-14 02:13 p.m.
could you use the bot
ian 2025-06-14 02:14 p.m.
I can serve them personally otherwise (if you'd give leave for me to) but I'd need to know if you want OSG, JAGC or the FOIA officer here
ian 2025-06-14 02:23 p.m.
ok I believe it's nicklaus
ian 2025-06-14 02:24 p.m.
solicitor general*
ian 2025-06-14 02:24 p.m.
nicklaus isnt sg anymore i forgot
ian 2025-06-14 02:25 p.m.
served @mike_bn
mike_bn 2025-06-14 02:47 p.m.
Uhhh
mike_bn 2025-06-14 02:47 p.m.
Ok let me summon them
mike_bnOk let me summon them
ian 2025-06-14 02:55 p.m.
I served them
ian 2025-06-14 02:55 p.m.
it should be fine
ianI served them
mike_bn 2025-06-14 04:41 p.m.
No a summons
mike_bn 2025-06-14 04:41 p.m.
Needs to be 3rd party service too
ian 2025-06-14 04:41 p.m.
alright..
ian 2025-06-14 04:54 p.m.@mike_bn how much time does he have to reply
ian 2025-06-14 08:19 p.m.
Once he is served I would ask they are allowed 24 hours for a response
ian 2025-06-14 08:19 p.m.
FOIA requests are meant to be speedy in nature and concluded expeditiously as per the statute
ian 2025-06-14 08:19 p.m.
they need to be completed within 24 hours so logically they should respond within that timeframe
mike_bn 2025-06-14 09:42 p.m.
Well what is the nature of this writ
mike_bn 2025-06-14 09:42 p.m.
What is it?
mike_bnWell what is the nature of this writ
ian 2025-06-14 09:42 p.m.
The writ we request?
ian 2025-06-14 09:42 p.m.
We request an order that they release the info
ian 2025-06-14 09:43 p.m.
or any other writ you deem appropriate
ian 2025-06-14 09:43 p.m.
but thats the ideal
ian 2025-06-14 09:43 p.m.
Can I summon?
ian 2025-06-14 10:01 p.m.@mike_bn can I summon
krm used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-15 08:08 a.m. @krm has added @Frost 🇨🇦 to the case channel.
Case Modified
krm 2025-06-15 08:09 a.m.@Frost 🇨🇦
krm 2025-06-15 08:09 a.m.
Do you waive summons @Frost 🇨🇦
krm 2025-06-15 08:10 a.m.
You have not been formally summoned by the court yet
ian 2025-06-15 08:27 a.m.@krm who the hell is frost bleed
ian 2025-06-15 08:27 a.m.
The solicitor general is summoned
krm 2025-06-15 08:30 a.m.
The respondent in the case.. the national guard?
krmThe respondent in the case.. the national guard?
ian 2025-06-15 08:30 a.m.
Previous FOIA the solicitor general was summoned
krm 2025-06-15 08:31 a.m.
Ok idc he submitted a NOA so you’ll have to deal with that
krm 2025-06-15 08:31 a.m.
Mama is just a ministerial officer
ian 2025-06-15 08:31 a.m.
Ah ok
ian 2025-06-15 08:31 a.m.
That's fine then
krmOk idc he submitted a NOA so you’ll have to deal with that
ian 2025-06-15 08:31 a.m.
That would count as waiving summons
ian 2025-06-15 08:31 a.m.
No?
krm 2025-06-15 08:32 a.m.
Waiver of service is a different rule
krm 2025-06-15 08:32 a.m.
A NoA does not waive service unless it specifically says so in the notice
krm 2025-06-15 08:33 a.m.
But if you would like dismissal based on a insufficiency of service of process be my guest
krm 2025-06-15 08:33 a.m.
Mama just makes sure
krmDo you waive summons @Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-15 08:36 a.m.
Yes
krmBut if you would like dismissal based on a insufficiency of service of process be my guest
ian 2025-06-15 09:22 a.m.
Ok ok I got it
ian 2025-06-15 09:22 a.m.@Frost 🇨🇦 you'd have 24 hours for a response ordinarily
ian 2025-06-15 09:22 a.m.@mike_bn
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-15 06:07 p.m.@mike_bn May I submit by midnight tomorrow night
ian 2025-06-15 06:14 p.m.@mike_bn we object
ian 2025-06-15 06:14 p.m.
they have 24 hours
ian 2025-06-15 06:14 p.m.
if the issue is it has to be in paper you could say he could argue it orally
ian 2025-06-15 06:14 p.m.
but we want this to be expeditious and speedy as the state code provides
mike_bn 2025-06-15 09:37 p.m.
He just got here
mike_bnHe just got here
ian 2025-06-15 09:37 p.m.
Statute says petitions need to be completed in 24 hours
ian 2025-06-15 09:37 p.m.
It's a simple matter
mike_bn 2025-06-15 09:38 p.m.
He can respond
Frost 🇨🇦mike_bn 2025-06-15 09:38 p.m.
Yes
mike_bn 2025-06-15 09:38 p.m.
He just got here dude
ian 2025-06-15 09:38 p.m.
He gets 24 hours after appearing
ian 2025-06-15 09:38 p.m.
?
mike_bn 2025-06-15 09:38 p.m.
Yes
ian 2025-06-15 09:38 p.m.
Thats what the statute provides
ian 2025-06-15 09:38 p.m.
You're giving him more than that
mike_bn 2025-06-15 09:38 p.m.
I am giving him an extra what
mike_bn 2025-06-15 09:38 p.m.
3 hours?
mike_bn 2025-06-15 09:39 p.m.
Ok fine he must have it in by tomorrow at 9:39 PM EST
mike_bn used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-15 09:39 p.m. @mike_bn has added @DauuX to the case channel.
Case Modified
ian 2025-06-15 09:39 p.m.
Ok sure
mike_bnOk fine he must have it in by tomorrow at 9:39 PM EST
ian 2025-06-15 09:39 p.m.
You need to rule by that time
ian 2025-06-15 09:39 p.m.
So he has to have it before that for you to rule
mike_bn 2025-06-15 09:41 p.m.
Ok
ian 2025-06-15 09:43 p.m.
21:38:99 EST
ian 2025-06-15 09:43 p.m.
1 second from 21:39
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:14 p.m.
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:15 p.m.
Drive copy for convenience: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_PL57mtkw7Q98yZHsNG-SyZjn-OT1EZN/view?usp=sharing
ian 2025-06-16 07:25 p.m.
thank you
Frost 🇨🇦Drive copy for convenience: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_PL57mtkw7Q98yZHsNG-SyZjn-OT1EZN/view?usp=sharing
ian 2025-06-16 07:25 p.m.
restricted please give access
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:27 p.m.
fixed
ian 2025-06-16 07:30 p.m.@Frost 🇨🇦 this just seems like a big bunch of buffoonery
ian 2025-06-16 07:30 p.m.
pardon my language
ian 2025-06-16 07:30 p.m.
§ 5305(d) does not apply because everyone does background checks, they are a common practice known to everyone and not exclusively law enforcement-related, even if the military police (LEO) conducts them
ian 2025-06-16 07:32 p.m.
§ 5305(f) also does not apply because a background check, the act of going thru somebody's account, messages etc is, again, a practice used by every single agency of the government (including, even, MAA, for example, a civil aviation administration agency in charge of flight regulations) and it is not necessarily at all related to "intelligence"—additionally, the burden of proof is on the state, you, to prove that it is in fact related to intelligence if that was the case, and simply saying it is does not suffice
ian 2025-06-16 07:33 p.m.
lastly MNG's completely waived these exemptions when their FOIA officer said the request had been fulfilled. You should be claiming that you fulfilled the request, not that an exemption applies, because you are estopped from doing so
ian 2025-06-16 07:33 p.m.@mike_bn
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:33 p.m.
I don't know how we are estopped just because we said we fulfilled it
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:34 p.m.
It was only clear you wanted exempted materials when you kept pushing for more information(edited)
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:34 p.m.
I also don't know why just because other folks also do background checks, it means we need to disclose our law enforcement practices and techniques on how MNG MP does them(edited)
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:35 p.m.
It is not clear to me why showing that other people do something makes the exemption not apply
ian 2025-06-16 07:35 p.m.
Burden of proof is on you to establish an exemption
ian 2025-06-16 07:36 p.m.
If you claim MNG MP somehow does these background checks differently than everyone else, and they are not common practice (which they are, by the way, sorry) then you must prove it to the Court, not just claim it
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:36 p.m.
I don't actually agree with that claim
ian 2025-06-16 07:36 p.m.
Which claim
ian 2025-06-16 07:36 p.m.
That you have the burden of proof?
ian 2025-06-16 07:36 p.m.
Would you like me to get you the case law surrounding that?
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:36 p.m.
Yeah, it's not written in the statute(edited)
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:36 p.m.
Sure, if it's specifically about the MF FOIA act(edited)
ian 2025-06-16 07:36 p.m.
No, it's not, it's in SCOTUS case law
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:36 p.m.
Ok then it's not about the MF FOIA act
ian 2025-06-16 07:37 p.m.
dude
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 07:37 p.m.
It's about a different law
ian 2025-06-16 07:37 p.m.
I believe insert has a rule against cross talking
ian 2025-06-16 07:37 p.m.
I just realized
ian 2025-06-16 07:37 p.m.
so Id rather not continue this here but we can move to chamber-chat
ian 2025-06-16 08:05 p.m.@mike_bn see chamber-chat if you want
ian 2025-06-16 08:05 p.m.
I move for you to grant relief in a default-like writ, since the respondent's response is simply insufficient. They need to prove, not just claim, an exemption, and they have plainly failed to do that
ian 2025-06-16 08:06 p.m.
At the very least order they are required to prove an exemption so that they do, and that way we can rebut it
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 08:06 p.m.
Like I said, the nature of the law enforcement techniques/processes exception is inherent in your request
ian 2025-06-16 08:07 p.m.
I don't think it is, for it to be law enforcement it needs to be not known publicly and typically used by law enforcement and exclusively by law enforcement (Im not making stuff up, you can look up the precedent for this yourself if you so please)
ian 2025-06-16 08:08 p.m.
Background checks are not law enforcement-exclusive stuff, inherently, unless you DO have some sort of special super classified way you do these things, in which case you'd be required to prove that you do in fact do it differently than the private sector or civil government agencies such as DOT
ian 2025-06-16 08:08 p.m.
so clearly the nature of law enforcement techniques is not inherent in my request
ian 2025-06-16 08:09 p.m.
for all of these you need to prove this stuff, thats just how this works, burden of proof is on you
ian 2025-06-16 08:09 p.m.
if you dont like it thats too bad
ianI don't think it is, for it to be law enforcement it needs to be not known publicly and typically used by law enforcement and exclusively by law enforcement (Im not making stuff up...
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 08:10 p.m.
I'm not convinced of this claim
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 08:10 p.m.
Your argument relies on this entirely
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 08:11 p.m.
If we were to accept your argument then what even is a law enforcement technique that's not used by anyone else?
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 08:11 p.m.
Security guards use virtually all law enforcement techniques too
Frost 🇨🇦If we were to accept your argument then what even is a law enforcement technique that's not used by anyone else?
ian 2025-06-16 08:11 p.m.
if you re-read the statute it doesn't only cover law enforcement techniques
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 08:11 p.m.
Similarly for private investigators
ian 2025-06-16 08:11 p.m.
it covers other information
ian 2025-06-16 08:11 p.m.
so for example
ian 2025-06-16 08:12 p.m.
if law enforcement conducts an operation to apprehend a very violent suspect
ian 2025-06-16 08:12 p.m.
and someone FOIAs it
ian 2025-06-16 08:12 p.m.
it can be denied
ian 2025-06-16 08:12 p.m.
techniques, sure, you'll be limited in what you can claim is LE-related
ian 2025-06-16 08:12 p.m.
but that's just how it is I mean what can you do
ian 2025-06-16 08:12 p.m.
it's not just techniques, is my point, but if you can find a technique thats not common knowledge and used by LEOs it is exempt
ian 2025-06-16 08:13 p.m.
most of the time § 5305(d) wont be talking about techniques tho
ianit's not just techniques, is my point, but if you can find a technique thats not common knowledge and used by LEOs it is exempt
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 08:13 p.m.
Why does it have to not be common knowledge and only used by LEOs
ian 2025-06-16 08:13 p.m.chamber-chat
ian 2025-06-16 08:13 p.m.
we're crosstalking
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-16 08:13 p.m.
For the record I am making no claim about whether the technique that ACID used is or is not "common knowledge"
ian 2025-06-16 08:13 p.m.chamber-chat
mike_bn 2025-06-17 01:02 a.m.
I swear to god
mike_bn 2025-06-17 01:03 a.m.
Not reading a single argument made since yall want to yabble
mike_bn 2025-06-17 01:04 a.m.@ian want me to rule?
mike_bnNot reading a single argument made since yall want to yabble
ian 2025-06-17 07:19 a.m.
I tried to put it all in chamber chat your honor
ian 2025-06-17 07:19 a.m.
Your jackass
ian 2025-06-17 07:19 a.m.
Would you like me to summarize it in an additional pleading? I could get it quickly I believe
mike_bn 2025-06-17 12:36 p.m.
No I’ll rule
ian 2025-06-18 08:22 p.m.@mike_bn will you rule tomorrow
mike_bn 2025-06-19 12:42 p.m.
Petition is denied
mike_bn 2025-06-19 12:42 p.m.@ian
mike_bn 2025-06-19 12:42 p.m.
I agree with the government that the information you requested is protected from release by law
mike_bnI agree with the government that the information you requested is protected from release by law
ian 2025-06-19 12:59 p.m.
Could you elaborate
ian 2025-06-19 01:14 p.m.
This would be conflicting with this opinion https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jlMt67fK2UdozbCwebocHjeaaSNSzLws/view?usp=sharing
ian 2025-06-19 01:14 p.m.
So I'd like an explanation on why that's being overridden if you could
mike_bn 2025-06-19 01:34 p.m.
I dont have the time to write a 9 page order on this
mike_bn 2025-06-19 01:34 p.m.
appeal me
mike_bn 2025-06-19 01:34 p.m.
let sc decide
mike_bnI dont have the time to write a 9 page order on this
ian 2025-06-19 01:35 p.m.
I dont need one
ian 2025-06-19 01:35 p.m.
Just a general reason
ian 2025-06-19 01:35 p.m.
So I can understand
ian 2025-06-19 01:35 p.m.
If you could
mike_bn 2025-06-19 01:37 p.m.
I agree with the government
mike_bn 2025-06-19 01:37 p.m.
That the information is protected under law
mike_bn 2025-06-19 01:37 p.m.
Dismissed with prejudice @Brenda Cornwallis
ian 2025-06-19 01:38 p.m.
I can't appeal if I dont know what your ruling is
ian 2025-06-19 01:38 p.m.
We need questions of law for appeal that you're not raising
mike_bn 2025-06-19 01:38 p.m.
I 100% agree with the government and everything said in their pleading
mike_bn 2025-06-19 01:38 p.m.
Use that as the basis
ian 2025-06-19 01:39 p.m.
Ok thank you judge
mike_bn 2025-06-19 01:39 p.m.
Sorry dont have time to handle this
mike_bn 2025-06-19 01:39 p.m.
nor do I want to (so sorry)
mike_bnSorry dont have time to handle this
ian 2025-06-19 01:48 p.m.
If you cant couldnt you reassign
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 01:51 p.m.
Thanks Your Honor
ian 2025-06-19 06:11 p.m.@mike_bn I do need an active judge for this case that can correctly look into the § 5305 statute and rule on its merits
ian 2025-06-19 06:11 p.m.
If you can't do that perhaps you could reassign to a judge who can
ian
DauuX 2025-06-19 07:15 p.m.
This is dismissed with prejudice buddy
DauuX 2025-06-19 07:15 p.m.
No reassignment.
DauuXThis is dismissed with prejudice buddy
ian 2025-06-19 07:20 p.m.
not pending a minute order it's not
ian 2025-06-19 07:26 p.m.
Shared from Chess In The Park
ianmike_bn 2025-06-19 08:28 p.m.
Sure
mike_bn 2025-06-19 08:28 p.m.
Dismissal reversed
mike_bn 2025-06-19 08:28 p.m.
Post appeal stuffs
mike_bnDismissal reversed
ian 2025-06-19 08:55 p.m.
Great thank you
ian 2025-06-19 08:55 p.m.
so is it being reassigned
mike_bn 2025-06-19 09:42 p.m.
No
mike_bnNo
ian 2025-06-19 10:03 p.m.
so how is this going to work then if the dismissal is reversed
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:19 a.m.
This case is still alive. I’m keeping it open to allow you an appeal.
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:19 a.m.
Or you can abandon and I’ll make sure this doesn’t get assigned to me again because this is a broader statutory issue which I don’t have the time to research
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:19 a.m.
If this would’ve came across my docket, maybe a month ago or in two months I would’ve had time
ian 2025-06-20 12:19 a.m.
I don't quite understand
ian 2025-06-20 12:19 a.m.
Is it dismissed then
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:20 a.m.
I issued my rolling, but I am keeping the case open to allow you to file your notice of appeal and your petition to the Supreme Court
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:20 a.m.
Yes, it is the Smith. I’m just keeping this channel open.
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:20 a.m.
Dismissed sorry I’m using speech to text
ian 2025-06-20 12:20 a.m.
I'm gonna be real I think if you can't rule because you can't research the issue you shouldn't be dismissing
ian 2025-06-20 12:21 a.m.
Instead reassigning
ian 2025-06-20 12:21 a.m.
No?
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:21 a.m.
I did research the issue and on a statutory level, which is what I’m reviewing I think your claims are meritless
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:21 a.m.
By the reading of the law, I interpret your claim as unsubstantiated thus I dismissed your petition
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:21 a.m.
I’m merely saying if you want me to write an opinion on this, I can’t do it and if I do so it would be very broad
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:22 a.m.
You have to understand I am working a lot right now is not a very good time
ian 2025-06-20 12:23 a.m.
I understand you reviewed the case but if you don't have time to explain your ruling and set a precedent I think the effect is the same to that if you hadn't
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:23 a.m.
How about this?
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:24 a.m.
And also, I want to add I don’t pick the cases I get assigned and trust me. I would’ve not have picked this one if it came across my desk, but it was a little too late however I will do this. I am free on Sunday. I can get you an opinion then.
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:24 a.m.
I’m running around my county like nonstop for work. I’ve only been home maybe 10 hours this whole week and this was unprecedented for me.
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:25 a.m.
I’m still on my way to another thing for work and it’s almost one in the morning
ian 2025-06-20 12:25 a.m.
I think it may not be needed after all actually
ian 2025-06-20 12:25 a.m.
We might reach an agreement with the DOJ
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:25 a.m.
Amazing
ian 2025-06-20 12:25 a.m.
But I'll keep you posted
ian 2025-06-20 12:25 a.m.
Ideally otherwise yes Sunday
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:25 a.m.
Just let me know I try being fair and my ruling was based on research
mike_bn 2025-06-20 12:26 a.m.
But I’m just letting you know I cannot dive super super deep into this issue
ian 2025-06-20 12:26 a.m.
Okie dokie
ian 2025-06-20 12:26 a.m.
krm 2025-06-27 08:44 a.m.
being archived @mike_bn
krm used /transcript
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-27 08:44 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-27 08:44 a.m.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1388137969130541156 Successfully created transcript.
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-27 08:44 a.m.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1388137972729249939 Successfully created transcript.
ian 2025-06-27 02:44 p.m.@krm unarchive
ian 2025-06-27 02:45 p.m.@mike_bn we're going to need that ruling
ian 2025-06-27 02:45 p.m.
DOJ (not my section specifically) has went back on their word they'd fix this so I'm sorry but we need to pursue this
iankrm 2025-06-27 02:45 p.m.
he said no ruling will be issued and you can file appeal
krm 2025-06-27 02:46 p.m.
until then it will remain closed
krm 2025-06-27 02:46 p.m.
cc @mike_bn
krmhe said no ruling will be issued and you can file appeal
ian 2025-06-27 02:46 p.m.
He said he could issue a ruling if we scheduled a time
ian 2025-06-27 02:46 p.m.
Not your place
ianHe said he could issue a ruling if we scheduled a time
krm 2025-06-27 02:46 p.m.
you havent issueda notice of appeal so there is no reasno to keep this case open post verdict
krm 2025-06-27 02:46 p.m.
signed, administrative office
krmyou havent issueda notice of appeal so there is no reasno to keep this case open post verdict
ian 2025-06-27 02:46 p.m.
He said he'd give us an indepth ruling when he was available to do so
ian 2025-06-27 02:47 p.m.
We told him it wasn't needed anymore but now it is
ian 2025-06-27 02:47 p.m.
So unarchive this channel
ianHe said he'd give us an indepth ruling when he was available to do so
krm 2025-06-27 02:47 p.m.
ok he can do that under this category
ian 2025-06-27 02:47 p.m.
Ok
ianDOJ (not my section specifically) has went back on their word they'd fix this so I'm sorry but we need to pursue this
ian 2025-06-27 02:47 p.m.
Again if you are not able to do in depth research or weigh the facts of the case I strongly urge you to recuse
ian 2025-06-27 02:48 p.m.
Because there is precedent conflicting with your decision not only irl but in the same district court as well
ian 2025-06-28 01:50 p.m.@mike_bn have you seen this
ian 2025-06-28 01:50 p.m.
Again if you are not able to diligently research the topic I strongly urge you let another judge take it but regardless if not I'd love a ruling
ian 2025-06-29 11:13 a.m.@mike_bn your jackass.?
ianmike_bn 2025-06-29 02:32 p.m. 
ian 2025-07-04 11:37 p.m.@mike_bn your jackass
ian 2025-07-04 11:37 p.m.
Please reply
ian 2025-07-23 10:43 p.m.@mike_bn are you not going to give a ruling
ian 2025-07-23 10:43 p.m.
If not Ill appeal directly
Kezzera used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-27 12:33 a.m. @Kezzera has added @ian to the case channel.
Case Modified
ian 2025-07-28 09:06 p.m.@mike_bn your jackass if you won't give a ruling like you said can I at least move for reconsideration
ian 2025-07-28 09:06 p.m.
before appealing
ian 2025-07-28 09:08 p.m.
the fact is we operate under a horizontal stare decisis doctrine
ian 2025-07-28 09:09 p.m.
overturning a prior decision by the same exact court, with no compelling reason to do so other than a general disagreement by the judge that's not even elaborated on in any ruling or opinion, is highly frowned upon in our judicial system
ian 2025-08-02 04:58 p.m.@honkhonk @Nicklaus @krm @Xerxy please unarchive, I have a motion for reconsideration incoming
iankrm 2025-08-02 04:58 p.m.
you have to appeal
krm 2025-08-02 04:58 p.m.
god bless
krmyou have to appeal
ian 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
I don't
ian 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
god bless
ian 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
please unarchive it
ian
Xerxy 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
Also, stop pinging all of the high command.(edited)
krm 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
he gave you notice of a final order
Xerxy 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
you need to ping the presiding judge.
ian 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
Bro what
krm 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
you have to appeal
ian 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
High commands?
ian 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
LOL
ian 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
WHATS A HIGH COMMAND
krmyou have to appeal
ian 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
The final order made an error in apprehension
ian 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
I'm allowed to move for reconsideration
ianThe final order made an error in apprehension
krm 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
final order constitutes final order
krm 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
dismissal with prejudice
krm 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
god bless
ian 2025-08-02 04:59 p.m.
which can be reconsidered...
ian 2025-08-02 05:00 p.m.
a final order can be reconsidered
ian 2025-08-02 05:00 p.m.
Unarchive it
krm 2025-08-02 05:00 p.m.
not really because he solidly said that this was dismissed with prejudice
krm 2025-08-02 05:00 p.m.
you aren't ordering anyone here. you appeal
krmnot really because he solidly said that this was dismissed with prejudice
ian 2025-08-02 05:00 p.m.
yes and he made an error in apprehension which means I'm allowed to move for reconsideration
ian 2025-08-02 05:00 p.m.
what are you arguing for
ian 2025-08-02 05:00 p.m.
unarchive it, it's not your problem
ianyes and he made an error in apprehension which means I'm allowed to move for reconsideration
krm 2025-08-02 05:00 p.m.
there is an appeals process for that. god bless
ian 2025-08-02 05:00 p.m.
you're wrong
ian 2025-08-02 05:00 p.m.
I'm allowed to move for reconsideration whether you like it or not
krm 2025-08-02 05:01 p.m.
you cant ask 2 months later for a motion to reconsider
krm 2025-08-02 05:01 p.m.
appeal
ian 2025-08-02 05:01 p.m.
yes
ian 2025-08-02 05:01 p.m.
I can
ian 2025-08-02 05:01 p.m.
I have justifiable reason for the delay
ian 2025-08-02 05:01 p.m.
unarchive
ian 2025-08-02 05:01 p.m.
the channel
ian 2025-08-02 05:01 p.m.
you are a prothonotary not the judge and you can't decide whether or not I can present a motion for reconsideration
Nicklaus used /remove
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-02 05:01 p.m. @Nicklaus has removed @ian from the case channel.
Case Modified
Nicklaus 2025-08-02 05:01 p.m.
stop altering the record
Nicklaus 2025-08-02 05:02 p.m.
the rules prescribe how to file a motion in an inactive case
Nicklaus 2025-08-02 05:02 p.m.
you also appeal decisions to an appellate court
krm 2025-08-02 05:02 p.m.
its been more than 28 days
Nicklaus 2025-08-03 11:43 p.m.
THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED .
/s/ insertreality
/s/ insertreality
Exported 300 messages